Search

Background: Liver disease is an important contributor to the mortality gap between First Nations Peoples and non-Indigenous Australian adults. Despite a high burden of metabolic comorbidities among First Nations Peoples, data about the epidemiology of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) in this population is scarce. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all adults hospitalized with MASLD or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with/without cirrhosis during 2007–2019 in the state of Queensland was performed. Patients were followed from the first admission with MASLD/MASH (identified based on validated algorithms) to decompensated cirrhosis and overall mortality. We explored differences according to Indigenous status using Multivariable Cox regression. Findings: 439 First Nations Peoples and 7,547 non-Indigenous Australians were followed for a median of 4.6 years (interquartile range 2.7–7.2). Overall, women were overrepresented, but more so in the First Nations cohort (72.7% vs. 57.0%, p < 0.001). First Nations patients were younger, a higher proportion lived in remote and socioeconomic disadvantaged areas, and had higher comorbidity compared to non-Indigenous Australians (all p < 0.001). Diabetes, the most common comorbidity affecting both groups, was overrepresented in First Nations Peoples versus non-Indigenous Australians (43.5% vs. 30.8%, p < 0.001, respectively). Nineteen (4.3%) First Nations Peoples and 332 (4.4%) of non-Indigenous patients progressed to cirrhosis decompensation (9.0% [95%CI 4.5–17.7] vs. 7.7% [95%CI 6.6–8.9; p = 0.956] respectively within 10 years). In multivariable analysis, there was no association between Indigenous status and progression to decompensated cirrhosis (p = 0.759) and survival (p = 0.437). Conclusions: This study provides the first population-based epidemiological data on MASLD in First Nations Australians. The high prevalence of diabetes (that is associated with advanced fibrosis and liver disease mortality) among young First Nations Peoples with MASLD raises concern about future risk of progressive liver disease in this patient population. These data highlight the importance of early identification of MASLD, and providing culturally appropriate intervention to reduce disease progression in parallel with the management of cardiometabolic comorbidities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Australia, the overall prevalence of liver disease is increasing. Maximising uptake of community screening programmes by understanding patient preferences is integral to developing consumer-centred care models for liver disease. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to elicit preferences for various healthcare services. Attribute development is a vital component of a well-designed DCE and should be described in sufficient detail for others to assess the validity of outcomes. Hence, this study aimed to create a list of potential attributes and levels which can be used in a DCE study to elicit preferences for chronic liver disease screening programmes. Methods: Key attributes were developed through a multi-stage, mixed methods design. Focus groups were held with consumers and health care providers on attributes of community screening programmes for liver disease. Stakeholders then prioritised attributes generated from the focus group in order of importance via an online prioritisation survey. The outcomes of the prioritisation exercise were then reviewed and refined by an expert panel to ensure clinically meaningful levels and relevance for a DCE survey. Results: Fifteen attributes were generated during the focus group sessions deemed necessary to design liver disease screening services. Outcomes of the prioritisation exercise and expert panel stages recognised five attributes, with three levels each, for inclusion in a DCE survey to elicit consumer preferences for community screening for liver disease. This study also highlights broader social issues such as the stigma around liver disease that require careful consideration by policy makers when designing or implementing a liver screening programme. Conclusions: The attributes and levels identified will inform future DCE surveys to understand consumer preferences for community screening programmes for liver disease. In addition, the outcomes will help inform the implementation of the LOCATE-NAFLD programme in real-world practice, and could be relevant for other liver and non-liver related chronic disease screening programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common type of chronic liver disease in Australia and its recent increase mirrors the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemics. Currently, many patients who present to primary care with abnormal liver function tests or steatosis on liver ultrasound are referred for assessment in secondary care. Due to the large number of patients with NAFLD, this results in long waits for clinical and fibrosis assessment, placing unnecessary burden on the public hospital system.Methods: We will conduct a 1:1 parallel randomised trial to compare two alternative models of care for NAFLD. Participants will be randomised to usual care or the LOCal Assessment and Triage Evaluation (LOCATE) model of care and followed for 1 year. We will recruit patients from the non-neighbouring Sunshine Coast and Metro South Hospital and Health Services (HHSs) in Queensland, Australia. Our primary outcome of interest is time to diagnosis of high-risk NAFLD, based on the number of participants in each arm of the study who receive a diagnosis of clinically significant fibrosis. Two hundred and 34 participants will give us a 95% power to detect a 50% reduction in the primary outcome of time to diagnosis of high-risk disease. We will also conduct an economic evaluation, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the new model of care. We will also evaluate the implementation of the new model of care.Discussion: It is anticipated that the results of this study will provide valuable new information regarding the management of NAFLD in the Australian setting. A relatively simple change to care could result in earlier identification of patients with significant liver disease and lower overall costs for the health system. Results will be directly disseminated to key staff for further distribution to consumers, policy- and decision-makers in the form of evidence briefs, plain language summaries and policy recommendations.Trial Registration: The trial was registered on 30 January, 2020 and can be found via ANZCTR - number ACTRN12620000158965. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cirrhosis patients are prescribed multiple medications for their liver disease and comorbidities. Discrepancies between medicines consumed by patients and those documented in the medical record may contribute to patient harm and impair disease management. The aim of the present study was to assess the magnitude and types of discrepancies among patient-reported and medical record-documented medications in patients with cirrhosis, and examine factors associated with such discrepancies.Methods: Fifty patients who attended a hospital hepatology outpatient clinic were interviewed using a questionnaire composed of mixed short-response and multiple-choice questions. Patients' reported medication use was compared with documentation in the hospital medical records and pharmacy database. Medication adherence was assessed using the 8-question ©Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). The multivariate logistic regression model was constructed using clinically relevant and/or statistically significant variables as determined by univariate analysis. All p-values were 2-sided (α = 0.05).Results: Twenty-seven patients (54.0 %) had ≥1 discrepancy between reported and documented medicines. Patients with ≥1 discrepancy were older (p = 0.04) and multivariate analysis identified taking ≥5 conventional medicines or having a 'low' or 'medium' adherence ranking as independent predictors of discrepancy (adjusted OR 11.0 (95 % CI 1.8-67.4), 20.7 (95 % CI 1.3-337.7) and 49.0 (95 % CI 3.3-718.5) respectively). Concordance was highest for liver disease medicines (71.9 %) and lowest for complementary and alternative medicines (14.5 %) and respiratory medicines (0 %).Conclusion: There is significant discrepancy between sources of patient medication information within the hepatology clinic. Medication reconciliation and medicines-management intervention may address the complex relationship between medication discrepancies, number of medications and patient adherence identified in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Indigenous Australians experience greater health disadvantage and have a higher prevalence of many chronic health conditions. Liver diseases leading to cirrhosis are among the most common contributor to the mortality gap between Indigenous and other Australian adults. However, no comparative data exist assessing differences in presentation and patient outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians hospitalised with cirrhosis., Methods: Using data from the Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection and the Death Registry, this retrospective, population-based, cohort study including all people hospitalised for cirrhosis in the state of Queensland during 2008-2017 examined rate of readmission (Poisson regression), cumulative survival (Kaplan-Meier), and assessed the differences in survival (Multivariable Cox regression) by Indigenous status. Predictor variables included demographic, health service characteristics and clinical data., Results: We studied 779 Indigenous and 10,642 non-Indigenous patients with cirrhosis. A higher proportion of Indigenous patients were younger than 50 years (346 [44%] vs. 2063 [19%] non-Indigenous patients), lived in most disadvantaged areas (395 [51%) vs. 2728 [26%]), had alcohol-related cirrhosis (547 [70%] vs. 5041 [47%]), had ascites (314 [40%] vs. 3555 [33%), and presented to hospital via the Emergency Department (510 [68%] vs. 4790 [47%]). Indigenous patients had 3.04 times the rate of non-cirrhosis readmissions (95%CI 2.98-3.10), 1.35 times the rate of cirrhosis-related readmissions (95%CI 1.29-1.41), and lower overall survival (17% vs. 27%; unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16 95%CI 1.06-1.27), compared to non-Indigenous patients. Most of the survival deficit was explained by Emergency Department presentation (adj-HR = 1.03 95%CI 0.93-1.13), and alcohol-related aetiology (adj-HR = 1.08 95%CI 0.99-1.19). The remaining survival deficit was influenced by the other clinico-demographic and health service factors (final adj-HR = 1.08 95%CI 0.96-1.20)., Conclusions: There was evidence of differential presentation, higher rates of readmissions, and poorer survival for Indigenous Australians with cirrhosis, compared to other Australians. The increased prevalence of Emergency Department presentation among Indigenous patients suggests missed opportunities for early intervention to prevent progressive cirrhosis complications and hospital readmissions.